Appeal No. 97-4206
Application 08/662,263
admitted prior art and either Smith, Rohrer '142, Yamagishi or
Herder which would fairly suggest the modification which the
examiner has proposed. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-4 and 22 as being
unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Smith or
Rohrer '142 and claims 5, 7 and 8 as being unpatentable over
the admitted prior art in view of Yamagishi or Herder.
Rejection (4)
The examiner has taken the position that it would have
been obvious to provide the notch of the admitted prior art
with a bottom which is wider than the opening at the top in
view of the teachings of Herder or Favreau. We do not agree.
With respect to Favreau, there is not even any clear teaching
therein of a notch which is wider at the bottom, much less a
suggestion to combine Favreau's disparate teachings with those
of the admitted prior art. That is, the flange or engaging
foot 20 of Favreau is clearly depicted as having an arcuate
bottom "for reception between a plurality of said ratchet
teeth" (column 4, lines 43 and 44). See also column 1, lines
40-45. Thus, in Favreau the ratchet teeth form the notches
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007